For many, this was a long overdue, a commonsense step and an acknowledgment that women are fighting in combat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and have been for more than a decade, only without being included in the military promotion pipeline.

For radio host Mark Davis, this was the beginning of the end of American's military.

"This is a disaster," he said on his radio show this morning on 660 AM The Answer. "It is an outrage against humanity."

It's also a "sick perversion," "pernicious," and "one of the worst ideas since the beginning of time."

Don't get Davis wrong. He thinks women are "good and strong and wonderful," not to mention tough for enduring that whole childbirth thing. He just doesn't think they can pass the military's physical standards for those engaged in combat.

As proof, he points to the recent failure of two women to pass Marine infantry training, failing to note the small sample size, the fact that one of the women had already passed the punishing endurance test, and the fact that the Marines combat test is significantly tougher than that in other branches.

And what if women do meet the physical standards? Davis dismisses this out of hand, insisting the number who could to be "infinitesimally small," maybe five in the entire military, and predicts that those standards will inevitably be watered down when this becomes embarrassingly clear, thus weakening the country's fighting force.

If that doesn't convince you, Davis has another ace up his sleeve. Combat situations put soldiers in danger of being captured by the enemy. Part of a soldier's job is to withstand torture and to be able to endure hearing one's fellow soldiers do the same. Since men have a natural inclination, "wired by God himself," to protect and shelter women, they couldn't bear to hear the rape and torture they might be subjected to.

"To ask a male soldier to do that is unconscionable," he said.

What Panetta's decision amounts to, he says, is a misguided attempt to conform to liberal notions of diversity. Just like people who support same-sex marriage do so to be nice "to our gay brothers and sisters," and just like affirmative action was an attempt to "be nice to our brothers and sisters of color," letting women serve in combat is simply a way of being nice to women.

"When our military becomes a touchstone of diversity, and that becomes more important than winning wars, then we are screwed," he says.

My dear departed aunt Gerry - an independent, tough-as-nails lesbian who could drink any punkass man under the table and rode a Harley during the 1950's - would have relished the opportunity to kick any man's ass who claimed she couldn't protect herself or serve her country on the battlefield.

I have always been what women consider to be a devastatingly beautiful man. When I was 7 I dressed up and sang Old Shep like Elvis Presely in a class talent show. Everyone cried including all the little girls in my rural school. Since that day and everyday thereafter, a posse of them would chase me into the boys bathroom where I would stay until recess was over. I hated them. I asked my Ma if I could slug one to make them stop chasing me. She said, “you can’t hit girls.”

As I passed through puberty it didn’t get any better. My pheromone effect on young women was immediate, married or single, no matter the race. I could usually stop a girl in her tracks at 5 yards. Some even broke out in a light sheen. It looked painful. Even some of the guys would react in a similar fashion. Am still dark complected with jet black hair. It has always been this way and I do not know why.

Okay I lied.

But girls, now you get the point. You know you cannot hang out on the battlefield because we’re going to operate differently. And so will the enemy.

One word: Testosterone. What is the most dangerous weapon on the earth? A 20 year old male with an assault weapon that has been pointed in the right direction by competent leadership. Why is that so? Testosterone flowing through his body and amplified by the conditioning and training he has recieved has done its work on his psyche making him ten feet tall, bulletproof and willing (and in some cases) able to run through a brick wall for the right cause. Now, if we can find a bunch of hormonally challenged women (they wouldn't be much to look at, but...) then maybe I'm in.

What this and other moves of this nature fail to address (as did Mr Davis) is that men and women have different bodies and different brains. We are biologically different, psychologically different, anatomically different and emotionally different. Be that a coincidence of evolution or part of the intelligent design it is nonetheless a fact and we ignore it to our detriment.

Someone from the Dallas Observer calling out someone for ranting something extreme just to get attention? Sound familiar? Step out of your cubicle and look for the old, bearded, out of shape guy that likely told you he was one of the 20 million boomers that claimed to one of the 500k actually at Woodstock.

What's sad about this is that this person (and other "personalities"
like him) don't really have opinions on matters like these. They just
say things that a) they think will resound with whatever extreme
political viewpoint they are pandering to or b) will seem
"controversial" so that they'll get their name in the paper (remember
newspapers?!?) and have people (like you and me) talking. I fell bad
for this guy who doesn't have the talent or ability to actually create or do something.

What this was, was a brilliantly conceived and executed diversionary
tactic. There was no hint of this in the national discussion for the
last year. The Administration has been weathering a lot of criticism
lately, some well-deserved, some clearly petulant, all of it annoying
and distracting. Judging by a sampling of talk radio and conservative
blogs last night and this morning, the entire fundamental right wing
sector of our society has cleared their desks of gun control, benghazi
questions, gay marriage and a host of other nitnoid grievances and is
now focused like a laser on keeping women out of combat.

I don't have a lot of love for the Obama Administration (or the Republicans for that matter) But this was a brilliant move.

Called him once when he had some state rep lying about "hundreds of illegals voting in the last election" a few years ago. He went into a rage when I cited actual voter fraud cases from the Dallas News the previous day. One case prosecuted, a woman carried an absentee ballot from someone bedridden to the mailbox. Irrelevant liar who makes it up as he goes along, not up on current events.

Ryan - your context is completely wrong. Say what you want about my ideas of gender roles, this has nothing to do with their ability to pull a trigger. This has everything to do with what they can handle, and what we can handle. Evolve already? Buddy, I'm fucking miles ahead of you. I don't want to treat women like delicate flowers, I want to treat them like equals and in MY EXPERIENCE (compared to your NO experience, coward) they generally have no interest in equal performance and I know FROM MY EXPERIENCE that the standards are lowered in order for them to qualify for the roles they already have. Let's treat them equally, starting by removing any protections that they already have. Let's treat women infantrymen just like men, to include the hazing, shit talk, physical discipline, etc. You couldn't handle it, any they wouldn't be able to if it was TRULY equal.
Terry - call me an ass all you want, you too are a coward and a pussy.

Blake, you're silly. Your ideas about gender roles are outdated. Women can pull a trigger just fine. If you think that the rape of women soldiers is worse than the kind of torture male prisoners get, you're mistaken. You just want women to be delicate flowers that stay in the kitchen and raise children. Evolve already.

Ok, I'll answer for you. "No Blake, I don't have any experience in this". You cannot keep up, so stop trying. I'm not arguing against their acceptance of the inherit risks, but you don't understand that most women don't sign up for these jobs; they sign up to push pencils and fly desks. I'm arguing, from personal experience, that they'll find a way to do less, and you cannot accept that in combat, period.

The Progressive war on the realities of biology continues(1). See, biology shows up the lie of the blank slate and that people can be molded to fit the vision of the anointed.

There
are likely a very small number of female world-class athletes who might
be able to meet the physical conditioning and performance standards of
the more vigorous elements of SOCOM. Like less than 100. All of whom
would be better off applying their freakish sixth-sigma talents(2)
elsewhere and make megabucks. Maybe an order of magnitude more could hack Army or USMC infantry unit standards of physical fitness. Thing is, it requires much more effort on the part of women to achieve such prowess, relative to men. Also, it costs the services more to train up women to ANY physical fitness standard than it does to train men to an equivalent standard.

IOW, expect to see standards watered down, as they have for fire & police services.

Davis is correct that de-sensitivity training is required to condition the natural (perhaps, western culture socialized, as well?) protective response of men to women in distress. Because what this country really needs, more than anything, is women in combat and male service members inured to the suffering of women. Just ask the wives of current servicemen and I am sure they'd like their husbands to feel no guilt if they beat on their wives & daughters. .

.

.

.(1) "The Right believes in biology, but not in evolution; the Left believes in evolution, but not in biology."----Steve Sailer

(2) Guys who meet the standard are much more common, even in 2013 Obese Uh-merica.

"keep trying to change the argument", eh? you didn't touch on issues of trust even once in your initial post. what you did was make an implication that americans won't be able to cope with women being put in situations as a direct result of the INFORMED CHOICE they have made. that's what i responded to. try to stay on topic, ok?

Huh... I guess Mark Davis thinks Israel is wrong for having women in front line combat roles. And I guess he will be decrying the inclusion of women in combat roles in the armed forces of New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland as well.

This isn't combat roles, this is the infantry. They aren't in the infantry for a reason. A basic infantryman's behavior can best be summed up as purely alpha dog; few can survive in there already, fewer women will find it worth it.

Terry to you have any experience in this matter? I know for a fact, MEN, Marines, who couldn't handle being in the infantry and moved to other combat arms units; most of which have women serving in them. Its not a matter of seeing death, or being killed; its all about unit cohesion. If you cannot trust the person you are going to war with, you cannot fight effectively. This goes both ways. If a female combat infantryman feels as if she cannot trust the men she's with, bad things will happen.
So pfft, you are mistaken.

pfft. if i'm not mistaken, anyone who enlists in any branch of the military does so with the knowledge that horrible things could very well happen to them. if they believe otherwise, they are rather foolish, don't you think? i mean really... the whole concept of warfare sort of hinges on at least the threat of death and dismemberment.

In 10 years you'll all be screaming to protect women from front line infantry units. From the warrior culture inside these units, to the things that our enemies will do to women when captured; America will not be able to handle it. Keep trying to change the argument, but there is a huge difference between getting in a firefight when ambushed while running a convoy to kicking in doors, closing with the enemy, and killing them. America is about to find its limits, and it's not going to be pretty. You think there's a domestic violence problem in the US? Wait until the realities of REAL front line infantry combat sinks in.

There are women who can develop the endurance, upper body strength, mindset, etc., to do these jobs. And they can be just as valuable members of a unit as men. There may never be as many as their male counterparts, but they will fight, bleed, and sometmimes be maimed or die as well. We can and should be as respectful and proud of them. Regardless of moron-pundits on the radio.

I sure love and appreciate the women who want to serve their country in that way, and I hate to deny them that privilege, but it's my belief that females presence in combat situations is a distraction. Outrage though ? Not really.

Who is Mark Davis? Just read the article and from what I can tell, he wants women to be barefoot in the kitchen. Has he been in the military before? I have and his comments don't jive with what I know about how we treat one another in the service.

@roo_ster I believe in both biology and evolution...must be a moderate or a conservatve with liberal tendencies. Where do you get your $ figures on what it costs DoD to train troops to a particular physical standard, male vs female servicemenber? BTW, if a member of the team is suffering from wounds, held captive and beaten/sodomized as is all too common for US troops when POWs, the fact its happening at all overshadows my gender concerns. Mount a damn rescue mission already!

@A-nony-mouse Well, actually all those countries you listed in your 2nd sentence I'm sure he considers Godless liberal socialist failed states. But yeah, I though Mark supports Israel, so now he's saying they are "sick perverts" committing outrage against humanity?